1141RESOLUTION NO. 1141
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS RESCINDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1118 ADOPTED
ON MARCH 12, 2012 SETTING FORTH FINDINGS RELATING TO THE
REMOVAL OF TREES AT 48 SADDLEBACK ROAD DUE TO VIEW
IMPAIRMENT FROM PROPERTY AT 49 SADDLEBACK ROAD.
THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A view impairment complaint ("Complaint") was filed by Oksana Bihun
(Bihun), 49 Saddleback Road on July 8, 2011 pursuant to Chapter 17.26 of the Municipal Code
claiming that a view impairment was caused by trees located at 48 Saddleback Road (Hall). Hall
opposed the view complaint on numerous grounds. The Complaint was considered by the
Committee on Trees and Views and the City Council and was resolved by the Council's adoption
of Resolution No. 1118, ordering remedial action to restore the view, including the removal of
five trees.
Section 2. Hall filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court entitled Hall v. City of Rolling Hills, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
BS 136694 challenging the validity of the view ordinance and its application to the Bihun
Complaint. The court upheld the validity of the City's view impairment ordinance and the City
Council's findings of view impairment, but held that the evidence before the Council was
insufficient to impose the remedy of tree removal. The court issued a writ commanding the City
to rescind and reconsider the remedy imposed in the case.
Section 3. On February 25, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1138,
setting aside the remedy ordered in Resolution No. 1118 and the City Attorney thereafter
reported this action to the court in compliance with the writ. The Council further scheduled a
public hearing on April 8, 2013 in order that the City further comply with the writ of mandate by
considering new evidence and reconsidering the remedy previously imposed.
Section 4. On March 5, 2013, the electorate enacted Measure B, a ballot measure that
amended Chapter 17.26 by (i) protecting only a view that existed when the current property
owner acquired ownership of the property, (ii) limiting the protection of the ordinance to views
obstructed by "maturing" vegetation, thereby excluding views obstructed by trees that were
"mature" at the time of property acquisition, (iii) requiring that the existence of a view to be
demonstrated by "clear and convincing" evidence, and (iv) limiting restoration of views to "view
corridors," rather than panoramic views. Measure B states that it has retroactive application to
1988, the date that the existing ordinance was adopted.
Section 5. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2013 to
further comply with the writ of mandate and to reconsider the remedy imposed in the original
proceeding. However, the Council finds that since issuance of the writ the governing law has
changed with respect to what constitutes a protected view and that it must now act in accordance
with the law that is currently in effect. As amended by Measure B, the view ordinance now only
protects views that existed on the date that the property owner acquired the property. The
ordinance now exempts trees that were "mature" at the time of property acquisition and requires
clear and convincing evidence of the existence of a view. These issues were not addressed by
the Committee on Trees and Views nor the City Council in the hearings that led to the adoption
of Resolution No. 1118, and no evidence regarding these issues was presented or considered.
The Council concludes that its original action, as memorialized in Resolution No. 1118, is no
longer valid in light of the enactment of Measure B and further, that any determination of a
remedy must be preceded by determination of a protected view based on the evidence required
by Measure B.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, Resolution No. 1118 is hereby rescinded and the
Complaint is hereby remanded to the Committee on Trees and Views for further consideration in
light of the requirements of Measure B.
Resolution No. 1141
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Rolling Hills City Council this 8th day
of April 2013.
FranfflE. Hill
Mayor
Resolution No. 1141 2
1
1
1
1
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. 1141 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
RESCINDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1118 ADOPTED ON MARCH
12, 2012 SETTING FORTH FINDINGS RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF TREES
AT 48 SADDLEBACK ROAD DUE TO VIEW IMPAIRMENT FROM PROPERTY
AT 49 SADDLEBACK ROAD.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 8, 2013, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Pieper, Black, Lay, Dieringer and Mayor Hill.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
City Clerk
Resolution No. 1141 3